Rick Moran has a post up exploring Mike Huckabee’s record as Governor of Arkansas in which he concludes that although Huckabee is a social conservative he most certainly isn’t a ‘real’ conservative.
“While Huckabee claims to have cut taxes 90 times totaling $378 million, the state’s Department of Finance and Administration says he also raised taxes 21 times that brought in a whopping $883 million,” Rick writes. “Under his ‘conservative’ governance, the ‘average Arkansan’s tax burden’ went “from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes.”
He warns American conservatives that Huckabee sounds an awful lot like George W. Bush did back in the day: “Get past the charm, the unctuousness, and the corn pone manner and what you have in Huckabee is a big government conservative who looks suspiciously like George Bush did in 1999.” And, finally, a word of caution: “I’m sure that if the GOP goes ahead and annoints Huckabee, the conservative movement in America will be set back as our once proud heritage of fiscal responsibility and support for smaller government will be trashed by another wolf in conservative raiment.”
If I were American this would be one of the major problems I’d have with Huckabee. Frankly, he’s not fiscally conservative enough for me. It should be clear to all of you by now, that I often don’t care much about ’social’ issues (they don’t get me riled up). To me, fiscal issues and foreign policy issues are most important. I focus on small government.
Having said that, Rick is wrong to say that Huckabee isn’t a conservative. He is. He’s just not a traditional conservative. Neither is he a libertarian conservative. He’s a social conservative. A Christian conservative, you could say. This group cares more about social issues than about spending issues. What’s more, although they agree with most other conservatives on social issues, they often tend to believe that the government should invest quite some in education, social programs, health care even, and they - of course - believe that the government should play an active role in shaping the economy.
There are different kinds of conservatives, and Rick would be wise to remember that.
What’s important in this debate is what kind of conservative you are. If you’re a social conservative, a Christian conservative who cares about spending in a responsible matter, albeit not in a (fiscally) conservative manner, Huckabee’s your man. If you believe that making government smaller isn’t as important as helping people while you don’t favor the big Democratic programs, Huckabee’s your man.
If, on the other hand, you believe that government is too big as it is right now, you should probably consider voting for someone else. If you oppose, for instance, No Child Left Behind you probably shouldn’t vote for Huckabee.
Who then, who can fiscal conservatives (such as myself) turn to? Rick obviously favors Fred Thompson. As I’ve said in the past, it seems to me that Thompson could be a good candidate, but he has an energy problem. If not in reality, then at least in perception. Of course there’s also John McCain, but McCain has an immigration problem, to put it mildly, and many conservative believe that his attempt to push through lobby reforms - which succeeded - was unconservative. Rudy Giuliani? Not social conservative enough and he’s surrounding himself with neoconservative advisers. Mitt Romney? As I see it, probably the best choice, although doubts remain about him changing his positions / views.
In short: traditional conservative don’t have a ‘perfect’ candidate. We can comment on all Republican candidates and call them unconservative in one way or another. The question is what issues matter most to you?
To me, fiscal issues and foreign policy issues are most important. I focus on small government.
I’ll second that, Michael.
“The question is what issues matter most to you?”
In a not complete order of priority.
1. Designing a foreign policy that works to the benefit of American citizens and doesn’t subject any population to what Iraqis have endured. This includes environmental policy since US actions in this regard harms third-world populations.
2. Balance of power completely restored.
3. Social issues such as ensuring the right to abortion across all states (with limitations and conditions left to the states), ensuring all gay American couples can get the same economic favors as straight couples (church marriage left to the states) and ensuring they can adopt no matter the state, making the War on Drugs human, ensuring welfare programs are stable, fair, respects the fact that not all households have two working parents and thus help people build their own spine by getting them to work ASAP etc.
4. Revamping all tax-funded programs and cracking down on waste, corruption and inefficiency, reducing or even stopping politically correct yet dubious missions such as affirmative action and making sure foreign aid et al. does not shy from condoms yet never gets in the hand of the corrupt.
I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things and not prioritized perfectly, but this is the gist.
Huckabee reminds me of Jimmy Carter *shiver*
Fiscal issues and Foreign policy are higher on my list, too. I’m not religious, but I tend toward the conservative on social policies. I think what the left advocate is tearing the fabric of this country apart, and this is, of course, not a good thing.
The moderator ate my earlier comment. IMHO Morans piece is a hack job on Huckabee’s record. Nevermind that Arkansas has HAD TO HAVE a balanced budget for nearly 40 years. I have to research further, but I believe Texas has something similar to Arkansas “Revenue Stabilization Law”. Huckabee and Clinton balance a budget, the Decider, not so much.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Arkansas+%22Revenue+Stabilization+Law%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
With just a few links, a similar post would say Huckabee’s a RESPONSIBLE Fiscal Conservative.
If he raised taxes, maybe it was called responsible government. Just how are the states to develop defense plans for potential terrorist attacks, maintain their crumbling infrastructure, improve educational standards , invest in alternative fuels, provide a safety net for the poor, provide healthcare for the uninsured, etc if they never raise taxes.
Whoever takes that kind of a pledge is living in a dream world, as Bush’s father found out. He did the responsible thing, and was condemned by conservatives for doing so. Bush 43 learned that to be worshipped by the Grover Norquist crowd he had to embrace Reaganomics over the more sensible economic policies of his father.
Huckabee seems to have been that type of pragmatic governor, who met Arkansas’ challenges with common sense solutions instead of rigid ideology. Good for him!